Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRISONJOY SARMA, JM
This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.03.2025 for the AY 2022-23.
At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the appeal by the department in support of which a condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation petition that the delay has occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the
The issue raised in ground No.1 by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of ₹3,04,06,00,00/- by the learned CIT (A) as made by the learned AO in respect of cash deposited by the assessee into bank account.
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 21.10.2022, declaring total income at ₹57,84,800/-. The case of the assessee was selected for CASS under complete scrutiny and the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee replied the said notices on the e-assessment module of ITBA by filing submissions on 17.06.2023 and 27.10.2023 furnishing the copies of computation of income, Form 26AS, bank statement, etc. The learned AO observed on the basis of information available before him that the assessee has deposited cash of ₹3,04,06,000/- into his bank account during the year. The assessee replied to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act that the cash was deposited out of cash sales proceeds in the normal course of business. The learned AO noted that assessee has not furnished any satisfactory reply nor gave/produced any documentary evidences to substantiate his claim and therefore, the learned AO treated the cash deposited as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the income of the assessee.
In the appellate proceeding, the learned CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under: -
“4. I have gone through the statement of facts, grounds of appeal and facts available on record, Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed his return of Income for AY2022-23 on 21.10.2022 declaring total income of Rs 57,84,800/- The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and a During the appellate proceedings the appellant submitted that he had filed return of income declaring total Income of Rs.57,84,800/-. He submitted a chart of comparative financial which is reproduced below:”
The appellant also filed month wise total cash sales which were Rs.2,27,33,912/- for FY2020-21, Rs.3,88,67,864/- for FY 2021-22. During the appellant proceedings the appellant was required to furnish GST returns which were furnished by the appellant vide reply dated 25.03.2024, copy of bank account in the books of the appellant was also required and was also furnished by the appellant. After perusal of all these details and various charts filed during the appellate proceedings I find that the cash deposit is 34.03% of the turnover and is not abnormal looking to the cash deposits in immediately preceding and succeeding years which are 36.08% and 35.91% respectively. I find that the details required by the Assessing Officer were furnished before him along with audit report copy of bank account, sale details etc and the Assessing Officer did not point out any deficiency in the books of accounts therefore, treating the cash deposits as unexplained in this case was not correct. The evidences submitted prove that the deposits in the bank account for out of sale proceeds of the appellant. Therefore, the addition of Rs.3.04,06,000/- is deleted and the grounds of appeal are allowed.
7. The issue raised in ground No.2 is against the deletion of addition of ₹26.00 lakh by learned CIT (A) as made by the learned AO in respect of investment in immovable property purchased by the assessee for which complete and necessary documents were not filed before the ld. Assessing Officer.
The facts in brief are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that assessee has purchased an immovable property for a consideration of ₹26 lakhs for which the assessee was asked to furnish the source of investment by issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, which were not provided and accordingly, the same was added as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act.
In the appellate proceedings the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition after taking into consideration the submission and contention of the assessee by observing and holding as under: -
“5.1 Ground No. 3: For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessment Unit, NFAC erred in making addition amounting Rs.26,00,000/- on account purchase of property treating it as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. This addition was uncalled for and unwarranted and hence the same be deleted. In this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.26 Lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property u/s 69 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings the appellant was required to explain the nature and source of investment of Rs.26 Lakh in purchase of immovable property. The Assessing Officer observed that the appellant could not provide the complete and necessary documentary evidences about purchase immovable property for consideration of Rs.26 Lakh. I find that the appellant had replied during the 11. The issue raised in ground No. 3 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹ 26 lakh by admitting additional evidences in the form of details of withdrawals copy of capital
12. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the assessee has not filed any additional evidences and ld. CIT (A) in para 5.1 has specifically mentioned that the assessee was required to submit the details of withdrawals for payments of ₹26 lakhs for purchase of property and accordingly, in compliance the assessee furnished the same comprising copy of bank capital account and copy of PNB bank statements. In our opinion the evidences filed by the assessee are at the instance and at thebehest of the ld. CIT (A) and has not filed any additional evidences suo moto. Therefore, these evidences filed by the assessee cannot be considered as additional evidences calling for compliance under rule 46A of the IT Rules on the part of the ld. CIT (A). The assessee filed before us the decision of Honorable Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Improve Financial Consultants Private Limited in ITAT/71/2025 GA/2/2025 vide order dated 17.09.2025, wherein the ld. Honorable High Court has held that even if the documents which were available before the ld. CIT (A) were not considered while deciding the appeal and the tribunal has rightly taken into account all these evidence while deciding the appeal. Therefore, in this case it was a submission of the ld. DR for the revenue that Tribunal has relied on certain documents which were not placed or produced before the ld. CIT (A) and also before AO and it was only before the appellate authority such documents were placed for consideration. In that context the Honorable Court has held that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and accordingly, the same was dismissed by upholding the order of tribunal as it was
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.10.2025.